In "The Challenge of Exploring Venus", the author argues the point that exploring Venus is worth the effort and risks exhibited. The author claims that, despite the harsh conditions and deadly atmosphere, this planet is worth travelling to and observing, due to its being the "nearest option for a planetary visit". While the author does list a few good reasons for Venus exploration, it is my belief that they also include many reasons not to explore this dangerous planet. This inclusion of the "cons" of exploration hurts the thesis more than it helps it, and damages the authors argument.

From the beginning of their argument, the author states that "no spacecraft survived the landing [on Venus] for more than a few hours" and that "not a single spaceship has touched down on Venus in more than three decades". The usage of these statements creates a negative image, which can lead readers to believe that the exploration of Venus is too dangerous to enagage in. Furthermore, the author uses facts intended to continue to convince readers that Venus is dangerous, when this is exactly the opposite of what the author is arguing for. Making statements which invoke fear or apprehension only pushes the reader away from the topic, instead of influencing him or her to gain interest in it. For instance, when the author uses phrases with negative connotations, such as "thick atmosphere", "corosive sulfuric acid", "800 degrees Fahrenheit", and "extreme", they influence readers negatively as well.

Similarly, the author provides little reasoning behind the belief that humanity should explore the planet Venus. Despite claiming that "Venus can sometimes be our nearest option for a planetary visit", there is little evidence given that exploring and observing Venus would be of much benefit. In fact, the author seems to have found more evidence against Venus exploration, as the prior paragraph (which listed reasons that Venus was dangerous) was much more explicit and detailed than paragraph 3. The negatives of exploring Venus (such as death and wasted money or time) seem to far outweigh the positives.

As the author continues with their argument, readers become increasingly aware that Venus is likely not as beneficial as the author intends to make it seem. With an unlivable biome and dangerous atmospheric conditions, Venus is likely far too hazardous to explore at this time in history, and I believe that the author of this article unwittingly proved so. For these reasons, I believe that the author of this article failed to support their thesis with thorough evidence or detail.       